Status: Open Debate

Arguments

Is it likely that all scientists believe that crap, or that unless you do believe it, you aren't considered a valid scientist?

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

I think it's possible, but not in the way a lot of people describe. Spontaneous life doesn't just happen, but with the right circumstances very simple enzymes and amino acids can be formed, then over tens of thousands of years, microorganisms, and the rest is history.

I think it's possible, but not in the way a lot of people describe. Spontaneous life doesn't just happen, but with the right circumstances very simple enzymes and amino acids can be formed, then over tens of thousands of years, microorganisms, and the rest is history.

You seem so sure, though not an ounce of practical evidence supports it.

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

@ErfisflatI believe in it because to me at least, it makes sense. Everything I've ever studied in biology and chemistry supports it.

All the chemistry we know and observe today can explain the conditions of the world billions of years ago. Not spontaneous creation of life, no, but the origins of life from chemical compounds.

From modern science, we know that life necessitates a combination of certain types of amino acids; from these acids come genes, DNA, and then complex structures. To make sense of how life came to be we need to understand how those amino acids joined together in the first place, which is something that is very easily studied in a lab. Most of them were joined through chaotic reactions in the acidic, chemically diverse environment back when the earth was just liquid and atmosphere.

Where true life comes in starts with the later product, RNA, which allows for self-replication. That's how cellular organisms came about. If you'd like any specific experiments that have proven this I'd be more than happy to explain

A common argument against all this (I think I've seen someone on here say it before?) is that it's just too specific. There's no chance that the conditions could be that perfect to support and sustain life so suddenly.

But it wasn't sudden; it was a VERY long chemical process. And it wasn't just chance, relatively speaking. I think one of the more interesting interpretations of evolution is the religious perspective that God set all of these conditions to be perfect.

Personally I don't think it's that oddly specific. The universe is so incredibly large that these conditions had to have happened sometime - so large that the spark of life in our small corner of the galaxy isn't so much of a miracle. A lot of people see that as depressing but I think it's exciting and amazing.

@ErfisflatI believe in it because to me at least, it makes sense. Everything I've ever studied in biology and chemistry supports it.

All the chemistry we know and observe today can explain the conditions of the world billions of years ago. Not spontaneous creation of life, no, but the origins of life from chemical compounds.

From modern science, we know that life necessitates a combination of certain types of amino acids; from these acids come genes, DNA, and then complex structures. To make sense of how life came to be we need to understand how those amino acids joined together in the first place, which is something that is very easily studied in a lab. Most of them were joined through chaotic reactions in the acidic, chemically diverse environment back when the earth was just liquid and atmosphere.

Where true life comes in starts with the later product, RNA, which allows for self-replication. That's how cellular organisms came about. If you'd like any specific experiments that have proven this I'd be more than happy to explain

A common argument against all this (I think I've seen someone on here say it before?) is that it's just too specific. There's no chance that the conditions could be that perfect to support and sustain life so suddenly.

But it wasn't sudden; it was a VERY long chemical process. And it wasn't just chance, relatively speaking. I think one of the more interesting interpretations of evolution is the religious perspective that God set all of these conditions to be perfect.

Personally I don't think it's that oddly specific. The universe is so incredibly large that these conditions had to have happened sometime - so large that the spark of life in our small corner of the galaxy isn't so much of a miracle. A lot of people see that as depressing but I think it's exciting and amazing.

and you believe all of this based on books written by men. I see many assumptions in your statements and I don't think any of it has been proven via the scientific method. 1. Billions of years.2. The earth was once liquid and atmosphere 3. A large universe 4. That we are in an insignificant corner of

Seeing that most of these stem from assuming we are on a heliocentric spinning ball, and there is no reason to assume that anymore, it all seems like pseudoscience to me. Apologies for any disrespect, but I love science, but I'm more of a natural sciences type of guy. Something that is testable repeatable scalable and practical is, and should be the core of science. Is there something practical you can give me to validate abiogenesis, or any of those claims?

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

@ErfisflatI believe in it because to me at least, it makes sense. Everything I've ever studied in biology and chemistry supports it.

All the chemistry we know and observe today can explain the conditions of the world billions of years ago. Not spontaneous creation of life, no, but the origins of life from chemical compounds.

From modern science, we know that life necessitates a combination of certain types of amino acids; from these acids come genes, DNA, and then complex structures. To make sense of how life came to be we need to understand how those amino acids joined together in the first place, which is something that is very easily studied in a lab. Most of them were joined through chaotic reactions in the acidic, chemically diverse environment back when the earth was just liquid and atmosphere.

Where true life comes in starts with the later product, RNA, which allows for self-replication. That's how cellular organisms came about. If you'd like any specific experiments that have proven this I'd be more than happy to explain

A common argument against all this (I think I've seen someone on here say it before?) is that it's just too specific. There's no chance that the conditions could be that perfect to support and sustain life so suddenly.

But it wasn't sudden; it was a VERY long chemical process. And it wasn't just chance, relatively speaking. I think one of the more interesting interpretations of evolution is the religious perspective that God set all of these conditions to be perfect.

Personally I don't think it's that oddly specific. The universe is so incredibly large that these conditions had to have happened sometime - so large that the spark of life in our small corner of the galaxy isn't so much of a miracle. A lot of people see that as depressing but I think it's exciting and amazing.

and you believe all of this based on books written by men. I see many assumptions in your statements and I don't think any of it has been proven via the scientific method. 1. Billions of years.2. The earth was once liquid and atmosphere 3. A large universe 4. That we are in an insignificant corner of

Seeing that most of these stem from assuming we are on a heliocentric spinning ball, and there is no reason to assume that anymore, it all seems like pseudoscience to me. Apologies for any disrespect, but I love science, but I'm more of a natural sciences type of guy. Something that is testable repeatable scalable and practical is, and should be the core of science. Is there something practical you can give me to validate abiogenesis, or any of those claims?

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

@ErfisflatSure thing; I don't think any of this has to do with the earth being spherical but I'm glad to explain.

Billions of years: we know this through carbon dating, of which I am not an expert. Basically carbon comes in a few isotopes; matter that contains both carbon-12 and carbon-14 isotopes comes in proportions. Carbon-14 is radioactive so we know it decays over time, and those proportions change. Measuring that C-12/C-14 ratio allows us to know how old the carbon is, and the oldest sample of matter on this planet we've ever found is billions of years old: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/ This is similar to how we know what the earth used to be made of and we can use the evidence to make fairly accurate (again, we can't know for sure) predictions about how it developed.

Size of the universe: radio telescopes, one of my favorite kinds, give a lot of cool information. The way they work is they send out radio waves, which reflect off of large-mass matter objects, such as asteroids and planets. The time it takes for the waves to come back after they bounce can be plugged into equations to find the distance of the object. That's how we know the size of our solar system. For WAY outer space much more advanced tech is used: measurements of brightness. Brightness has an interesting relationship with distance. Stars that slowly vary in their brightness over time are called Cepheid variables, and the rate of their pulsation (which can be measured over a few days by looking at the sky) has to do with how bright it actually is. Its intrinsic brightness (absolute magnitude) versus how bright it appears to us (apparent magnitude) can be used to measure distance. Since magnitude is so easy to measure astronomers use it all the time. For an explanation of the math see this link: https://lco.global/spacebook/cepheid-variable-stars-supernovae-and-distance-measurement/ Our universe stretches millions of light years across, and some people think it's bigger. Observably it's about 8.8x10 ^ 23 gigalightyears long, at the highest estimates.

Insignificance: I'll admit that's mostly subjective. Personally I think that with such a large universe, such a small portion of it (our planet) could only be considered a tiny corner.

The thing about studying the history of universe/earth is that it's impossible to conduct experiments that exactly tell us what happened in the past. What we have is a planet, samplings of earth, various technical measurements, and accurate predictions. Experiments conducted here and now give us those predictions.

@ErfisflatSure thing; I don't think any of this has to do with the earth being spherical but I'm glad to explain.

Billions of years: we know this through carbon dating, of which I am not an expert. Basically carbon comes in a few isotopes; matter that contains both carbon-12 and carbon-14 isotopes comes in proportions. Carbon-14 is radioactive so we know it decays over time, and those proportions change. Measuring that C-12/C-14 ratio allows us to know how old the carbon is, and the oldest sample of matter on this planet we've ever found is billions of years old: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/ This is similar to how we know what the earth used to be made of and we can use the evidence to make fairly accurate (again, we can't know for sure) predictions about how it developed.

Size of the universe: radio telescopes, one of my favorite kinds, give a lot of cool information. The way they work is they send out radio waves, which reflect off of large-mass matter objects, such as asteroids and planets. The time it takes for the waves to come back after they bounce can be plugged into equations to find the distance of the object. That's how we know the size of our solar system. For WAY outer space much more advanced tech is used: measurements of brightness. Brightness has an interesting relationship with distance. Stars that slowly vary in their brightness over time are called Cepheid variables, and the rate of their pulsation (which can be measured over a few days by looking at the sky) has to do with how bright it actually is. Its intrinsic brightness (absolute magnitude) versus how bright it appears to us (apparent magnitude) can be used to measure distance. Since magnitude is so easy to measure astronomers use it all the time. For an explanation of the math see this link: https://lco.global/spacebook/cepheid-variable-stars-supernovae-and-distance-measurement/ Our universe stretches millions of light years across, and some people think it's bigger. Observably it's about 8.8x10 ^ 23 gigalightyears long, at the highest estimates.

Insignificance: I'll admit that's mostly subjective. Personally I think that with such a large universe, such a small portion of it (our planet) could only be considered a tiny corner.

The thing about studying the history of universe/earth is that it's impossible to conduct experiments that exactly tell us what happened in the past. What we have is a planet, samplings of earth, various technical measurements, and accurate predictions. Experiments conducted here and now give us those predictions.

So, nothing at all that's practical. Since I've given practical and logical evidence that refutes the claims made, I have to assume that the information is unverifiable and false. As you hinted, carbon dating is inaccurate. Even evolutionary scientists accept that carbon dating is entirely ineffective in measuring time. Not only is it ineffective with relatively short periods of time, but the entire theory is based off a premise that essentially says that the maximum amount of years it can be used for is 40,000 years.

This means that using radiocarbon dating to say that anything existed 65 million years ago is like using a thermometer to measure the height of Mount Everest. The only people you will fool is the people who don't know what a thermometer is.

According to Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, an evolutionary geneticist from Stanford University, who wrote the book, "Genes, People, and Languages" which was published in 2000,

The most crucial dates in modern human evolution are unfortunately beyond the range of the radiocarbon method, which has a limit of about 40,000 years (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000, p. 61)

Additionally, evolutionist Richard Dawkins, author of the famous book, "The Blind Watchmaker", had this to say about radiocarbon dating:

Different kinds of radioactive decay-based geological stopwatches run at different rates. The radiocarbon stopwatch buzzes round at a great rate, so fast that, after some thousands of years, its spring is almost wound down and the watch is no longer reliable.

It is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years, but it is no good for the evolutionary timescale where we are dealing in millions of years (Dawkins, 1986, p. 226).

So even the top evolutionary scientists in the world affirm that radiocarbon dating is impossible to use to determine the age of anything.

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

@ErfisflatHow is that impractical? It directly addresses the claims you made and it's been proven and tested and the technology has been perfected over the years so I'd say it's all pretty accurate, plus it's sourced.

But let's address carbon dating since you brought that up, and had very good points. I think some of your information may be a bit misconstrued; "even the top evolutionary scientists in the world affirm that radiocarbon dating is impossible to use to determine the age of anything" is an immense exaggeration. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza never worked on carbon dating, and the book you mentioned only goes into genetics and distinctions between race, not carbon dating. He actually used carbon dating in one of his more famous experiments: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030436

The other quote you gave was accurate. Here is the full quote from his text "The Blind Watchmaker:"

"More recently, advances in physics have given us methods to put
absolute dates, in millions of years, on rocks and the fossils that they
contain. These methods depend upon the fact that particular
radioactive elements decay at precisely known rates. It is as though
precision-made miniature stopwatches had been conveniently buried
in the rocks. Each stopwatch was started at the moment that it was
laid down. All that the palaeontologist has to do is dig it up and read off
the time on the dial. Different kinds of radioactive decay-based
geological stopwatches run at different rates. The radiocarbon
stopwatch buzzes round at a great rate, so fast that, after some
thousands of years, its spring is almost wound down and the watch is
no longer reliable. It is useful for dating organic material on the
archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds
or a few thousands of years, but it is no good for the evolutionary
timescale where we are dealing in millions of years."

He then goes on to say how there are other methods of proving that the earth is millions of years old, specifically the potassium-argon method. Read about it on page 227:

Good points, I'll get back to you after a bit more reading. But by practical, I mean something anyone can do.

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

To the flat earther with his link, i am not going to even bother checking out the creationist website. The evolutionist websites three major arguments were against recent variations not the original experiment. The three major counterarguments are molecular oxygen, amino acids in water and UV Light. For the oxygen thing, oxygen only came into the atmosphere when cyanobacteria came to exist and cyanobacteria came much after abiogenesis. Cyanobacteria are life and they are what converted CO2 in O2 in early atmosphere.

Proteins in water - some fold forming polymer and more bonds. Some dissolve.Indiana univeristy -

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Why does the common man need to be able to perform an experiment in order for that experiment to be valid?

With the right materials at hand, anyone could do the miller-uley experiment.

Verifiability gives more credence to a claim than an appeal to authority, agreed? For instance, my science book claims the earth is a ball, even gives me a little cartoon to go along with the claim, but that's demonstrably false.

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

@Erfisflat ok in the beggining I thought you were trolling but now you might be serious. As for the miller urey you have not really disproved anything and you just shifted the argument to flat earth. This answers your original post that yes abiogenesis is definetly possible. You have proposed no countrarguments against abiogeneis sand just abruptly shifted to flat earth. Dont you think its a little bit stupid for someone in the 21st centure to believe that we live on a flying flat pancake? What is on the edge of the flat earth? Can you fall off the edge? How is it that humanity can go explore the moon and other planets and can send probes to the sun but have not found that edge nor the bottom of the flat disc of the earth? What is on the bottom of the earth? How do you explain day and night? If the earth is flat should not light hit all of it at once and eliminate ay and night? How do you explain round lunar eclipses on the moon? If the earth was flat, should not the earth cast a horizontal line as a shadow if it was flat disc instead of a round shadow? How do you explain the ships seeming to "sink" in the horizon if the earth is flat? How do you rationally explain the multiple lines of photographic evidence of the spherical earth from different aeronautics agencies, ameican and other countries? How do you explain the fact that other planets and celestial bodies like he moon are round and spherical? Dont believe they are? Grab a telescope and look at them for yourself.Even if the earth is flat, gravity would eventually turn it into a sphere. How do you explain the fact that airplanes have to adjust for the curvature of the earth? All pilots confirm this. How do you explain aristotle's observation that travelling away from the equator allows you to see more and new star constellations ? On a flat earth, shouldnt you be able to sell all the stars everywhere? How do you explain differences in temprature if the sun is hitting the flat earth all at once, should not we all have the same amount of sunlight and the same amount of heat. How do you explain different seasons without the angle of inclination of a spherical earth? How would a flat earth have different seasons if we all have the same exposure to the sun and the same insolation? I could go on forever. Just accept the evidence. Accept that the earth is not flat and is round. Dont redirect me to some link that will not respond to any of this. What evidence do you have for a flat earth? Why do you believe in a flat earth? If you do it because of the bible, well the hible got a lot of things wrong like evolution, the big bang, slavery like how Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51) and lack of womens rights who should stay silent in church and who have no authority over men. Why is the bible reliable if it got a lot of tjings wrong.

@Erfisflat ok in the beggining I thought you were trolling but now you might be serious. As for the miller urey you have not really disproved anything and you just shifted the argument to flat earth. This answers your original post that yes abiogenesis is definetly possible. You have proposed no countrarguments against abiogeneis sand just abruptly shifted to flat earth. Dont you think its a little bit stupid for someone in the 21st centure to believe that we live on a flying flat pancake? What is on the edge of the flat earth? Can you fall off the edge? How is it that humanity can go explore the moon and other planets and can send probes to the sun but have not found that edge nor the bottom of the flat disc of the earth? What is on the bottom of the earth? How do you explain day and night? If the earth is flat should not light hit all of it at once and eliminate ay and night? How do you explain round lunar eclipses on the moon? If the earth was flat, should not the earth cast a horizontal line as a shadow if it was flat disc instead of a round shadow? How do you explain the ships seeming to "sink" in the horizon if the earth is flat? How do you rationally explain the multiple lines of photographic evidence of the spherical earth from different aeronautics agencies, ameican and other countries? How do you explain the fact that other planets and celestial bodies like he moon are round and spherical? Dont believe they are? Grab a telescope and look at them for yourself.Even if the earth is flat, gravity would eventually turn it into a sphere. How do you explain the fact that airplanes have to adjust for the curvature of the earth? All pilots confirm this. How do you explain aristotle's observation that travelling away from the equator allows you to see more and new star constellations ? On a flat earth, shouldnt you be able to sell all the stars everywhere? How do you explain differences in temprature if the sun is hitting the flat earth all at once, should not we all have the same amount of sunlight and the same amount of heat. How do you explain different seasons without the angle of inclination of a spherical earth? How would a flat earth have different seasons if we all have the same exposure to the sun and the same insolation? I could go on forever. Just accept the evidence. Accept that the earth is not flat and is round. Dont redirect me to some link that will not respond to any of this. What evidence do you have for a flat earth? Why do you believe in a flat earth? If you do it because of the bible, well the hible got a lot of things wrong like evolution, the big bang, slavery like how Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51) and lack of womens rights who should stay silent in church and who have no authority over men. Why is the bible reliable if it got a lot of tjings wrong.

I think you originally queried about flat earth. It looks as though you just don't understand the flat earth model. To keep from derailing this debate (flat earth disproves evolution) please read the debate, and I can address any more concerns you have there. You'll find most of your answers have already been covered.

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Abiogenesis might or might not be true, but the way schools teach it, it seems like they want to make us believe it is absolutely true. Most of the evidence for it is either speculation, or outright false.

I think abiogenesis is a valid theory which makes sense when you think about it, but it has no evidence for it. It also doesn't explain how consciousness works.